Witty v. State

90 N.E. 627, 173 Ind. 404, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 48
CourtIndiana Supreme Court
DecidedJanuary 27, 1910
DocketNo. 21,480
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 90 N.E. 627 (Witty v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Witty v. State, 90 N.E. 627, 173 Ind. 404, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 48 (Ind. 1910).

Opinion

Jobdan, J.

Appellant, a resident of Knox county, Indiana, was charged by affidavit with practicing medicine without a license, in violation of a statute of this State. The prosecution was commenced in the city court of Vincennes, [405]*405and upon a trial the accused was found guilty and a fine assessed against him. Prom the judgment of conviction he appealed to the Knox Circuit Court. In the latter court he unsuccessfully moved to quash the affidavit. There was a trial by jury upon the issues joined, a verdict returned finding him guilty as charged, and a fine of $25 was assessed.

Over appellant’s motion for a new trial," assigning the statutory ground and also newly discovered evidence, judgment was rendered on the verdict. He appeals, and the alleged errors upon which he relies for reversal are: (1) Overruling of motion to quash the affidavit; (2) denying the motion for a new trial.

1.

The affidavit upon which the appellant was convicted charges “that on October 14, 1908, in the County of Knox and State of Indiana, Colonel E. Witty did then and there unlawfully engage in the practice of medicine, he, the said Colonel E. Witty, not then and there having a license to practice medicine under the laws of the State of Indiana.” Section 8400 Burns 1908, Acts 1897, p. 255, §1, declares it to be “unlawful for any person to practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics in this State without first obtaining a license so to do; as hereinafter provided.” Section 8410 Burns 1908, Acts 1897, p. 255, §9, declares that ‘ ‘ any person who shall practice medicine, surgery or obstetrics in this State without having a license duly issued as hereinbefore provided, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be fined not less than twenty-five dollars ($25) nor more than two hundred dollars ($200).” Section 8409 Burns 1908, Acts 1901, p. 475, §3, declares what shall be regarded as engaging in the practice of medicine within the meaning of the provisions of the statute requiring a license to practice medicine, namely: “To open an office for such purpose or to announce to the public in any way, a readiness to practice medicine in any county of the State or to prescribe for, [406]*406or to give surgical assistance to, or to heal, cure or relieve, or to attempt to heal, cure or relieve those suffering from injury or deformity, or disease of mind or body, or to advertise, or to announce to the public in any manner a readiness or ability to heal, cure or relieve those who may be suffering from injury or deformity, or disease of mind or body, shall be to engage in the practice of medicine within the meaning of this act: Provided, that nothing in this act shall be construed to apply to or limit in any manner the manufacture, advertisement or sale of proprietary medicines. It shall also be regarded as practicing medicine within the meaning of this act, if any one shall use in connection with his or her name the words or letters, ‘Dr.,’ ‘Doctor,’ ‘Professor,’ ‘M. D.’, or ‘Healer,’ or any other title, word, letter or designation intending to imply or designate him or her as a practitioner of medicine or surgery in any of its branches: Provided, that this act shall not be construed to apply to non-itinerant opticians who are at this time engaged in, or who may hereafter engage in the practice of optometry in this State, nor to professional or other nurses. In charging any person in an affidavit, information or indictment with a violation of this law by practicing medicine, surgery or obstetrics without a license, it shall be sufficient to charge that he did, upon a certain day and in a certain county, engage in the practice of medicine, he not having any license to so do, without averring any further or more particular facts concerning the same.”

It will be noted that this section declares what shall be regarded as sufficient in a pleading on the part of the State in a prosecution charging a person with a violation of the statute in question. Or, in other words, the legislature has declared that it shall be sufficient to charge that the accused person did upon a certain day in a certain county engage in the practice of medicine, he not having a license to do so, without averring any further or particular facts concerning the same.

[407]*407 2.

The particular objection urged against the affidavit by counsel for appellant is that it does not negative certain provisions found in §8409, supra, which declare that the act is not applicable to the sale of proprietary medicines or to non-itinerant opticians, or to nurses, professional or otherwise. This objection cannot be sustained. These provisions in question are not found in that part of the statute defining the crime. They are in the nature of a defense, and need not be negatived by the State in its pleading; but in order to render them available to the accused person he must interpose them as defenses upon the trial of the cause. Ferner v. State (1898), 151 Ind. 247; State v. Bridgewater (1908), 171 Ind. 1.

The affidavit in question fully complies with the requirement of §8409, supra, and therefore must be held sufficient. The sufficiency of an affidavit similar to the one here involved was sustained by this court under this same provision of the statute in Melville v. State (1909), ante, 352. See, also, Parks v. State (1902), 159 Ind. 211, 59 L. R. A. 190, and eases cited. There was no error in overruling the motion to quash the affidavit.

3.

The evidence in the ease discloses that appellant had an advertisement inserted in the Vincennes Commercial, a newspaper of general circulation published in the city of Vincennes, Knox county, Indiana. This advertisement was published for about a month and was as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Centman v. Cobb
581 N.E.2d 1286 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)
Walkenhorst v. Kesler
67 P.2d 654 (Utah Supreme Court, 1937)
State v. Williams
5 N.E.2d 961 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1937)
Hill v. State Ex Rel. Wilson
2 N.E.2d 227 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1936)
Beyer v. State
158 N.E. 477 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1927)
Lundy v. State
145 N.E. 485 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1924)
Lowery v. State
185 S.W. 7 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1916)
Board of Medical Examiners v. Freenor
154 P. 941 (Utah Supreme Court, 1916)
Commonwealth v. Zimmerman
221 Mass. 184 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1915)
Locke v. Ionia Circuit Judge
151 N.W. 623 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1915)
State v. Paris
101 N.E. 497 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
Malone v. State
100 N.E. 567 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1913)
State Bank v. Lawrence
96 N.E. 947 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1912)
Kirk v. State
126 Tenn. 7 (Tennessee Supreme Court, 1911)
Hazlitt v. State
93 N.E. 669 (Indiana Supreme Court, 1911)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
90 N.E. 627, 173 Ind. 404, 1910 Ind. LEXIS 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/witty-v-state-ind-1910.